Flagship conservation areas 559
charities than men (Piper & Schnepf, 2007), the 35–54 age group gives the most to charity (McHattie, 2018), more edu- cated people are more likely to give to overseas causes (Micklewright & Schnepf, 2007), and wealthier people have more disposable income for charitable giving (CAF, 2019). This means we can be confident that our study can provide potentially valuable insights. We first discuss the conservation area attributes that respondents found impor- tant and then discuss how this can be used to inform cam- paigns based on flagship conservation areas.
Preferences for conservation area attributes
FIG. 1 Mean willingness to pay (with 95% confidence intervals) for the significant conservation area attributes from the multinomial logit model. These model-generated willingness to pay values are indicative of the difference between donor preferences for individual attributes rather than absolute values.
Discussion
Like all marketing campaigns, it is important to identify and understand the target audience when selecting flagships (Smith et al., 2020). Our analysis was based on asking respondents from the UK to choose between donating dif- ferent amounts to a selection of hypothetical conservation areas in South Africa. Our sample included more women, and people who were young, well-educated and relatively
wealthy.However, this sample is similar to potential donors to overseas conservation flagship campaigns given that in the UK, more women donate to environmental conservation
Community ownership was the most important attribute in our model, which suggests that donors are not solely driven by biodiversity objectives but also by social concerns. This is consistent with a similar study in which participatory con- servation was strongly valued by potential donors (Lewis et al., 2018). Community ownership may be seen as fairer and more legitimate than other forms of ownership, or more likely to bring benefits to poorer people (Markova-Nenova & Wätzold, 2017; Lewis et al., 2018). This may particularly be the case when considering conservation areas in South Africa, a country with relatively high poverty levels and a colonial history that included the forced removal of people from their land (Carruthers, 1995). It should be noted, how- ever, that our questionnaire provided no detail on what community ownership entailed, so more research is needed to identify the specific details that could potentially encour- age donations. Charity ownership was also valued over gov- ernment and private ownership, perhaps reflecting public trust in environmental charities to spend their money well. This is an encouraging result considering that research
TABLE 2 Parameter estimates (± SE) for conservation area attribute preferences for the multinomial logit model (MNL) and the latent class model (LCM) with three groups of respondents. For the latent class model, the per cent probability of an individual belonging to each group is shown in parentheses after the group name.
MNL
Utility function variables Threatened bird species Charismatic mammals Legal protected area status
Low existing conservation funding
Private ownership Charity ownership
Community ownership Donation
Class variables Education
Environmental organization membership
Log income *P,0.05; **P,0.01; ***P,0.001. Oryx, 2022, 56(4), 555–563 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000259
0.702 ± 0.042*** 0.547 ± 0.049*** 0.060 ± 0.052
0.566 ± 0.049*** −0.048 ± 0.048
0.524 ± 0.043*** 0.740 ± 0.096***
−0.012 ± 0.002*** LCM Group 1 (33.6%) LCM Group 2 (11.8%) LCM Group 3 (54.6%)
2.416 ± 0.302*** 1.269 ± 0.179*** 0.043 ± 0.219
1.949 ± 0.302*** 0.419 ± 0.187**
1.220 ± 0.199*** 0.575 ± 0.378 0.004 ± 0.006
0.006 ± 0.136 0.765 ± 0.332**
−12.860 ± 4.394***
0.660 ± 0.379* 1.435 ± 0.503*** 1.044 ± 0.427** 0.200 ± 0.381
0.183 ± 0.420 0.283 ± 0.283 1.88 ± 0.807**
−0.108 ± 0.017*** −0.325 ± 0.196*
−0.455 ± 0.712 −12.654 ± 6.198**
0.309 ± 0.065*** 0.340 ± 0.081 ***
−0.038 ± 0.075
0.448 ± 0.078*** −0.075 ± 0.068
0.620 ± 0.067*** 0.709 ± 0.141***
−0.004 ± 0.002*
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164